On Wednesday 26 June 2013 19:38:03 Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 22:36:48 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > virtual qint64 features() const = 0;
>
> I am no expert on this part of the language, but wouldn't a
> quint64 make more sense here? Presumably, one wants to use it
> like this:
On Wednesday 26 June 2013 19:24:52 Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 16:05:14 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I'm sending new password interface. Now instead of type
> > enum, plugin should emit one of result signal (with this
> > pointer). Also I
> > removed private variables which are not
On Friday, 2013-06-28, Pali Rohár wrote:
> And I merged factory class from password and addressbook
> interfaces to one, because both have same functions. It is easier
> to match correct trojita plugin in trojita plugin loader.
>
> Here is git repository (branch master) with my gsoc code:
> http:
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 12:35:19 CEST, Kevin Krammer wrote:
http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=clones/trojita/pali/trojita.git
I would still recommend to do at least the completion task in form of a job.
I frankly was under the impression there was agreement on this anyway?
ALso I definitly saw so
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 11:50:13 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
In interface are virtual pure functions. So then remove protected
constructor (and compiler will generate one default)?
If you can compile this, you'll be my hero ;-)
-- snip
class Pure {
public:
virtual void fo
On Friday 28 June 2013 14:10:35 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 12:35:19 CEST, Kevin Krammer wrote:
> >> http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=clones/trojita/pali/trojita.git
> >
> > I would still recommend to do at least the completion task
> > in form of a job.
>
> I frankly was under th
On Friday 28 June 2013 14:20:34 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 11:50:13 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > In interface are virtual pure functions. So then remove
> > protected constructor (and compiler will generate one
> > default)?
>
> If you can compile this, you'll be my hero ;-)
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 14:20:33 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 14:10:35 Thomas Lübking wrote:
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 12:35:19 CEST, Kevin Krammer wrote: ...
Now I'm rewriting addressbook requests to use jobs. But I do not
think that we need common interface for both addr
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 14:27:34 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 14:20:34 Thomas Lübking wrote:
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 11:50:13 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote: ...
I know, so I'm asking if I should remove constructor (and
compiler will generate one without parent qobject paremeter
Hi Trojita users!
In the beginning, i want to say hello to everybody.
I am not a programist and cant do it on my own.
I am wondering if anybody using Trojita on Windows 7?
If so, i would like to have a windows build of latest Trojita for Windows.
If someone could send a link to windows build, plea
On Friday, 2013-06-28, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I know, so I'm asking if I should remove constructor (and
> compiler will generate one without parent qobject paremeter) or
> move it to public section?
The compiler will create a default constructor if there would be no
constructor otherwise.
However,
On Friday, 28 June 2013 14:42:59 CEST, k wrote:
I am not a programist and cant do it on my own.
I am wondering if anybody using Trojita on Windows 7?
If so, i would like to have a windows build of latest Trojita for Windows.
If someone could send a link to windows build, please?
Hi "k",
people
On Friday 28 June 2013 14:41:22 Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Friday, 2013-06-28, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > I know, so I'm asking if I should remove constructor (and
> > compiler will generate one without parent qobject paremeter)
> > or move it to public section?
>
> The compiler will create a default co
It is not so easy as you has written :( i tried, download something from qt
from nokias site... afair...
i downloaded zipped latest sources and cmake and... what to do?
I think i will keep waiting for windows binaries :(
But if you are writing "The code *works* on Windows" so how do you k
On Friday, 28 June 2013 14:31:21 CEST, Thomas Lübking wrote:
The point about a common class is to allow generic job handlers
as well as not to have to write the same stupid "stop",
"cancelled", "finished" interface multiple times.
Speaking about the KJob, I'd prefer to keep the interface small
On Friday, 28 June 2013 14:53:10 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
And for example QDBusAbstractAdaptor has constructor protected
I don't care about the public/protected access specification, I'm objecting to
the idea of having this constructor defined inline (or any other member
function defined inlin
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 14:53:10 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
And for example QDBusAbstractAdaptor has constructor protected:
http://doc.qt.digia.com/4.7/qdbusabstractadaptor.html
And exactly how many pure virtual functions?
;-P
Thomas
On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:05:03 CEST, k wrote:
But if you are writing "The code *works* on Windows" so how
do you know if there is no binaries for windows? :)
Because some people are regularly reporting either success in getting it built
on Windows and others are sending in patches fixing
On Freitag, 28. Juni 2013 15:06:41 CEST, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Friday, 28 June 2013 14:31:21 CEST, Thomas Lübking wrote:
The point about a common class is to allow generic job
handlers as well as not to have to write the same stupid
"stop", "cancelled", "finished" interface multiple times.
Sp
> Because some people are regularly reporting either success in getting it
> built on Windows and others are sending in
>patches fixing compatibility with the MSVC compiler. And personally, I also
>tend to build it on a Windows VM every
>now and then, although irregularly.
So... maybe if you
On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:19:04 CEST, k wrote:
So... maybe if you will build someday windows version you could
upload it somewhere?
This is not going to happen, sorry. I don't know anything about distributing
Windows or Mac software properly, and I don't see myself trying that blindly.
--
Tr
On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:17:46 CEST, Thomas Lübking wrote:
Error logging or similar can connect a generic "Job::error(int
id, QString desc)" slot and you don't have to define the
signals, resp. members/getters lilke m_/id() multiple times.
I still don't see a big benefit in this. It would ma
On Friday, 2013-06-28, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Friday, 28 June 2013 15:17:46 CEST, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > Error logging or similar can connect a generic "Job::error(int
> > id, QString desc)" slot and you don't have to define the
> > signals, resp. members/getters lilke m_/id() multiple times.
>
On Friday, 28 June 2013 11:43:32 CEST, Pali Rohár wrote:
Here is git repository (branch master) with my gsoc code:
http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=clones/trojita/pali/trojita.git
Hi Pali, wow, looks like you've been busy in the meanwhile -- I'm happy to see
that. It would be even cooler if you let
24 matches
Mail list logo
